Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jun 2020, at 01:41, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'm not aware of any takeaways near me licensed > to sell alcohol. it may have something to do with public drinking being allowed or not (on the street, not in a pub) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Paul Allen wrote: > > Maybe bread, probably pastry, but I very much doubt sweets. I meant to say pastry, not sweets like in candy. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Paul Allen wrote: > > It doesn't explicitly say alcoholic beverages, so it doesn't fit pubs. To decide the kind of place I would not look whether a place sells alcohol or not, as this is not a question of typology but if drug legislation

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 28. Jun 2020, at 21:55, Paul Allen wrote: > Either you have very expensive cafes or very cheap restaurants. :) clearly you could have both, so it is not a very good criterion. > To over-generalize even further, a cafe is fast food with > seats. My local chip shop

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Jun 2020, at 19:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > Because I can spot > a cafe by looking through the window as I go past but I cannot determine > the type of service without hanging around or going in. it lies in the nature of things that you must know a thing in order

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 28. Jun 2020, at 17:11, Paul Allen wrote: > Some cafes in the UK lack table service. Maybe somebody brings your > order over after you've placed your order at the counter, maybe your order > is announced when it is ready and you have to get it yourself, maybe > you

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 28. Jun 2020, at 15:58, bkil wrote: > We are leaning towards being dissatisfied with tagging as either > shop=pastry or amenity=cafe. today I think I would prefer a generic descriptive term as the main tag (e.g. shop=sweet_bakery) and have subtags for specilizations

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
FWIW, the tag shop=pastry was introduced for these, because the tag that was in use up to then was shop=confectionery where the term seemed to describe a sweets shop. Now, pastry is probably a term which covers just a part of all these, literally. In general, it may also be a question what you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jun 2020, at 23:16, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > I wish you much luck convincing iD not to apply its presets ("upgrade tags") > for those Starbucks locations that don't have seating. we are not discussing iD presets on this list, it is about tagging. Cheers

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jun 2020, at 16:59, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > Even if it > was just a kiosk I would still tag amenity=cafe for consistency. if it were just a kiosk you should not tag it as amenity=cafe, exactly for this reason: consistency. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jun 2020, at 16:03, Philip Barnes wrote: > > I would call that a takeaway in everyday language which we map as fast food > in OSM. I would be ok with fast food for bubble tea, although typically you say “food and drinks”, i.e. calling a place where you can get

Re: [Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 20:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first > option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though > "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option. I agree with Joseph, the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 19:47 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > In British English we have tea shops - they also sell coffee and food. We > have > coffee shops - they also sell tea and food. Functionally, they are cafes, > as > OSM tags define that term. > I believe it is an omission of the early

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
FWIW, I also believe these are very different from shop=beverages, as they are selling drinks ready to consume, while shop=beverages is a kind of shop that sells beverages to take home (while nothing prevents you from buying a single drink and consume it as soon as you leave the shop, this is not

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson wrote: > > Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be > cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only > junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > A lot of the UK's sewer network is old. Like a qanat, it channels water and > has vertical shafts. Little of that network, except some of the very first > sewers in the UK, is of historical significance. according to WP

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 02:58, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=log says it should only be > used on a node, but if you don't know exactly where then I'd say using it on > the way would be fine when you add a barrier=log to something

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 22. Juni 2020 um 09:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Guillaume < josephguilla...@gmail.com>: > I suppose the reason I haven't provided an example is that historically > significant qanats are the exception in my opinion - in most cases I can't > think of a reason why it should be listed as historic

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 12:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Jun 26, 2020, 09:29 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road. > > Yes, but how we should tag it? > sorry, couldn't resist ;-) I would tag a few

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE wrote: > > For me there are 2 categories: sites hosting free images like > Flickr, Mapillary and Commons and all the rest. Flickr is only at 1200 tag occurrences in total and we should stop this fragmentation IMHO. They are not free

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE wrote: > > Is there anything preventing us from running bots (with simple > algorithms) on the database? Wikimedia projects do that all the time. I > rarely see this in OSM (besides the http/https bot) We should be really reluctant, I

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 01:45, Mike Thompson wrote: > > How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees > across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log. to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road. Cheers

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

2020-06-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Jun 2020, at 19:59, pangoSE wrote: > > image=File:* -> commons_file=File:* image=Category:* -> > commons_category=Category:* image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:* > -> commons_file=File:* image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:* -> >

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

2020-06-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Jun 2020, at 19:59, pangoSE wrote: > > There are some image= tags that link to multiple images separated by ";". > These will be manually migrated to contain only one image that is not linking > to commons and the rest in a note, note1, noteX if multiple urls.

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-06-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and > cyclists). > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg what makes you believe this is mandatory oneway for pedestrians? Looks

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
when I write „protected area“, this often will have implications like you may not construct buildings, you may not walk off roads and paths, you may not pick plants (e.g. flowers) and mushrooms, log trees, hunt, light a fire, etc., while otherwise in Germany you have generally the right to walk

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Jun 2020, at 17:20, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area boundaries > determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary, are they > actually protected? Are they excluded from the area? in

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

2020-06-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Jun 2020, at 09:59, Georg Feddern wrote: > > "A boat that is _not_ driven by motor or sail." > So it also forbids canoe/kayak. > > So the access can only be determined correctly if a rowboat is considered > with the access canoe=*. canoe=no rowboat=no boat=yes

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

2020-06-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Jun 2020, at 06:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I would say that rowboats should be a boat, while canoes & kayaks (& surfskis > should also be mentioned under that category) would be canoe I would also see it like this. Boats with a sail may be very small

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Jun 2020, at 00:07, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > only some qanats are of historic value while I don’t think these must be absolutely tagged with historic=*, you still could show an example of a qanat that “isn’t of historic value” so that it becomes more

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 15:22, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > My point was only that we should be carefully looking for variants of the > concept, and try to make it mappable, avoiding too specialized tags. > Something like "milk collection point" would comprise both if we were to

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 14:13, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > The nearby farmers bring their milk to the container and fill it up. The full > containers are collected and carried to the dairy. > I found this photograph of such a container on Instagram. > I suppose this is not a

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > this makes a lot of sense, the sentence “the immediate water source is an > aquifer OR a well” doesn’t. ok, maybe it does ;-) Can a well have a higher water level than the aquifer it is boring

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 10:05, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > "the origin of the qanat was a well that was turned into an artificial spring" this makes a lot of sense, the sentence “the immediate water source is an aquifer OR a well” doesn’t. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 02:26, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > In case of a well, as the aquifer is below your starting point, I’d think > > you would need some kind of pump and not just gravity (at the beginning)? > > Look at the diagram: >

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 03:02, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > It would be like mapping every fountain as historic. > > They're often not considered of historic interest locally, let alone > nationally or internationally. > > Hope this clarifies my thinking... you are raising

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jun 2020, at 01:59, Paul Allen wrote: > >> Can there be old underground water conveying structures that people have dug >> into the ground, that are not “historic”? Can you explain what kind of >> situation you are thinking about? > > The tag historic=* is not a

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 09:33, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > That's right - what I meant is that we should not treat every qanat as > historic just because it is old. I do not follow. Can there be old underground water conveying structures that people have dug into the

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 20. Jun 2020, at 20:39, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: > The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not a spring, > stream or river > Water flows by gravity in free flow (not pressurized or pipe flow) > The channel is underground (minimising

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > in the sense of using a non-English and non-European term where the most > descriptive and clear term comes from a non-European language. We have other > cases of such tags in OSM but still in a proposal process

Re: [Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen wrote: > > They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle > prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world > where they actually are still in use (if they are). I think if any I would use

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 02:10, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > somebody else needs to map whether it is historical or active. for me „historic“ does not necessarily imply it is not active. Have a look at the historic key, most things are „active“:

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2020-06-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 01:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is > restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no. for roads access=yes is assumed, it is not necessarily the default for all kind of

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume wrote: > > I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to > tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or > waterway=canal+canal=qanat. > > There's already 1000 tagged, and

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 19. Juni 2020 um 23:15 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > As mentioned on the proposal page, there are 4 criteria, which all qanat > features share: > > >- The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not >a spring, stream or river > >

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
What about historic=aqueduct should it be applied as well, in case of historic qanats? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Jun 2020, at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > A qanat is a specialized kind of underground aqueduct which is the > traditional way of supplying water in hot and arid climates within limited > distance of a mountain range. while the description reads quite

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Jun 2020, at 11:20, European Water Project > wrote: > For how long ? for as long as Facebook wants. There is also the practical aspect: even if the license is permissive, it doesn’t imply you can actually get the data for downloading. Facebook has changed

[Tagging] site relation definition

2020-06-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I just noticed that a year ago someone well meaning has significantly changed the site relation definition, by introducing the requirement for the site to be "man_made": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation%3Asite=revision=1850677=1850254 According to the comment, this is

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Jun 2020, at 20:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: >> What do you mean by 'just unused?' > > > Waiting to be demolished or repaired, turned on, reused etc. just unused means not currently used/operating, but might again in the future, or not. For example a disused

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 23:28, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a > couple of exceptions to the rule. the rule is mostly pointless, because it depends what you define as a feature. In the crossing example

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:56, Mike Thompson wrote: > > Also, the land manager (e.g. parks and recreation department) has access to > almost all of their properties via motor vehicle. > > Does this only apply to unpaved ways? General motorized traffic is typically

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:19, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed > change. this sentence was only introduced recently, it is not backed by history, current usage or the people in this thread here. Just

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 20:28, Clifford Snow wrote: > > 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j > 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of > crossing

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 14:09 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>: > As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for > instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that > the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 02:31, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without > 'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of > what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by > the fact that they

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jun 2020, at 01:07, Mike Thompson wrote: > > I asked this same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a > couple of weeks ago on this list and received a largely different answer from > the one I am receiving today. Perhaps it is just that

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2020, at 11:53, European Water Project > wrote: > > Which is why we seek to store user contributed images on Wikimedia Commons > (if they will accept them) rather than on our server. +1, I completely agree, of all available options wikimedia commons seems a

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-06-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2020, at 18:14, Alan Mackie wrote: > > Last I heard it was "mostly harmless". the less dangerous an area is, the more the remaining dangers will be emphasized. Let’s tag normalized dangerousness ;-) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map > it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been > replaced by

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Dear Martin, > > For-profit companies have different levels of openness, I think it would > be a mistake to put them all in the same bucket. > > While all their data and images are not open,

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone On 6. Jun 2020, at 11:22, Lanxana . wrote: But how to indicate that it’s underwater partially or totally and its access is occasionally possible, when the water drops? an area with natural=water around it? I find these tags, but none convinces me:... Location=underwater

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jun 2020, at 03:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground > penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist > ultimately things under the surface would be included,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jun 2020, at 23:54, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Do you also object when the geometry of the railway and the road is a > straight line? yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the razed/dismantled-railway > tag in the case of railway tracks have been replaced by roads with the same > geometry. +1 Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Jun 2020, at 16:56, Cornelis via Tagging > wrote: > > Maybe this one even serves as example for an old railway that in fact > should be mapped to explain these clearly visible features that > otherwise would lack an explanation? this is about a different topic:

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

2020-06-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jun 2020, at 10:14, European Water Project > wrote: > > They also expressed interest in having more Mapillary images linked to OSM > objects. from the OpenStreetMap point of view it seems preferable to have the images we link to available openly. If mapillary

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-06-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Jun 2020, at 03:58, Jack Armstrong wrote: > > > The wiki permits the mapping of reality, on-the-ground, as it is in the world > today. OSM should reflect what exists today, not decades ago. If there is > something that remains of a previous railroad, then it can

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

2020-06-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Jun 2020, at 02:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > All features with 50+ uses? It would probably not load within minute in a > typical browser. you’re right, make it 500 > > In its current state it is still barely usable. +1 Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

2020-06-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Jun 2020, at 02:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > The Map Features page is already quite long and unwieldy, so it is reasonable > to limit how many more tags are added. yes, it is already so long, it really doesn’t matter so much whether you add another item or

Re: [Tagging] Mapping Ecomuseum

2020-05-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 31. May 2020, at 14:45, Lorenzo Stucchi > wrote: > > But since the ecomuseum is not just a physical limited space but it is a sum > of areas of different municipality, I should add the tag on that big area? you could create a multipolygon and make them one

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 31. May 2020, at 02:26, Alan Mackie wrote: > > Most tracktype=grade1 are probably highly suspicious depends on the area, in southern Germany at least in some areas, most tracks are actually paved with asphalt (while being explicitly closed to non-agricultural

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. May 2020, at 19:23, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > For tracks i have simple criteria when it cant be a track: > > - residential buildings (or used for reaching them) > - (school) buses > - garbage collection trucks > - postal services > > If anything is seen on that

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale wrote: > > Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the > footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you > can walk on that footway. I cannot see this. To me there is a

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale : > On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > Here's an example for such a situation: > (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg > > I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping Ecomuseum

2020-05-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 11:31 Uhr schrieb Lorenzo Stucchi < lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>: > Hi all, > > I would like to ask if there is any tag that could be used to map the > Ecomuseum [1]. > > They are composed of the main building that could be mapped as > “tourism=museum” and maybe with a

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

2020-05-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. May 2020, at 08:31, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting > the use of the access=private tag here. these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this:

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. May 2020, at 12:44, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > What we are discussing now is how to make sure that a hiking path (not a > foot-cycle-way) is tagged correctly as such. can you explain what you mean by the word hiking path? Is it about the purpose (only useful for

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

2020-05-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 26. Mai 2020 um 18:48 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding > (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount). > Bikes are only

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

2020-05-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. May 2020, at 20:37, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > i'd expect OSM > offering me a conflict free (in legal and physical terms) route based > on the tags it finds. > > This is especially true for transit e.g. traversing something. This is > pretty inline with my

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

2020-05-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. May 2020, at 23:43, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > plenty of ways that look from the layout like combined foot-cycle paths but > have no signage at all > plenty of service roads which show the "no transit for any vehicle" sign, but > in reality you can happily pass

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale wrote: > > 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be > your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's > work should be set very high indeed. > +1 I completely subscribe

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

2020-05-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. May 2020, at 07:06, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > It is still considered acceptable to map abandoned railways, where the old > railway grade remains, even though the metal rails have been removed. As a side note these are “dismantled” railways, while abandoned

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 24. May 2020, at 23:54, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I am aware of the histroy - I only wanted to bring up the contradiction > between the two wiki pages before changing the wiki. The situation is different for roundabouts and motorways. In both cases in absence of the

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. May 2020, at 03:10, Mike Thompson wrote: > > This seems to contradict what Mateusz said. "Way used solely to access a > private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter > whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson wrote: > A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is > highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is > too long (exact distance not specified), or too rough (physical >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

2020-05-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. May 2020, at 17:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > This leads me to what I really wanted to say: > Trail route relations (and cycling route relations) could or should (?) > include the guideposts, and for that purpose we need a role for these nodes: > role=guidepost

Re: [Tagging] Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email

2020-05-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 19. Mai 2020 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Hi Martin, > > Thank you for your message. > > I see where you are coming from, but forcing our contributors who want to > take a photo of a fountain via our app to have wikimedia and openstreet

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for COVID Vouchers

2020-05-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 19. Mai 2020 um 14:55 Uhr schrieb Rossella Di Bari < dbrosse...@gmail.com>: > Hi! I am Rossella, an italian neo-mapper, nice to meet you :) > In Talk-It [1] we get into a debate on vouchers, provided by the > Government, for the purchase of essential goods, to support the families in >

Re: [Tagging] Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email

2020-05-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 19. Mai 2020 um 13:30 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Hi Martin, > > you can store an image link on the OpenStreetMap object, this is also > usable to find the object after someone has copied the tags to another > object (e.g. node-> way/relation

Re: [Tagging] Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email

2020-05-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 19. May 2020, at 12:50, European Water Project >> wrote: > The simpler the solution the better. you can store an image link on the OpenStreetMap object, this is also usable to find the object after someone has copied the tags to another object (e.g. node->

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. May 2020, at 12:49, Steve Doerr wrote: > > Doesn't that violate > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element ? it doesn’t. Any elements you like :) The tag defines what is an element, for example a route is something “on top” of a highway

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-05-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. May 2020, at 13:16, Paul Allen wrote: > > It makes it more difficult to the extent that a decision has to be made as to > whether we treat the NHS in the UK as a whole as admin level 1 or NHS Wales > as admin level 1. Or some other hierarchical arrangement. Or not

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

2020-05-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. May 2020, at 04:03, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > That doesn't mean that each area needs to have it's own legal entity and > administrator, nor need to be able to set laws, rules, codes etc. just that > the boundary itself is used for some administrative purposes.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

2020-05-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. May 2020, at 00:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > > Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it? > > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard there is also documentation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 12. Mai 2020 um 18:02 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > > Bottom line: more we look into this taxi business more interesting and > confusing it gets. > IMHO it is not very confusing. There are taxis, and there are various other kind of individual and mass transportation and leisure rides

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. May 2020, at 02:37, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > In short, is this tag "tagging for the tourist"? Those in the know > will know to check if it's a motorcycle taxi or a car taxi stand. if they expect both to have the same main tag, yes. After a while when they have

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. May 2020, at 06:24, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes > that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a > route relation describing it. > > Is there a reason that you see route relations for

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >